The Awareness Center closed. We operated from April 30, 1999 - April 30, 2014. This site is being provided for educational & historical purposes.
We were the international Jewish Coalition Against Sexual Abuse/Assault (JCASA); and were dedicated to ending sexual violence in Jewish communities globally. We did our best to operate as the make a wish foundation for Jewish survivors of sex crimes. In the past we offered a clearinghouse of information, resources, support and advocacy.

Jerusalemite held for assaulting children in synagogueBy Etgar LefkovitsThe Jerusalem Post - December 31, 2003

A 20 year old Jerusalem man was under arrest Wednesday for sexually assaulting at least ten children in a city synagogue, police said.

The children involved in the sexual abuse case were aged six to twelve. The haredi suspect, who has confessed to carrying out the attacks, was apprehended late Tuesday night, after a minor complained to police that the suspect had shown him his sexual organ during prayers in the synagogue in the city's Romema district, and then sexually abused him in a nearby room.

During his interrogation, the suspect confessed to carrying out ten such attacks both in the synagogue, and on a city street, after first offering the minors to show them how 'children enter the world,' Jerusalem police spokesman Shmuel Ben-Ruby said.

The suspect was remanded by seven days late Wednesday by the Jerusalem Magistrate's court, and, despite police opposition, ordered the man sent for a psychiatric evaluation, and forbade the publication of his name.

Some of the information on The Awareness Center's web pages may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this update for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

President Bush on Friday signed important legislation
that will authorize more than $200 million across the federal government
to combat the practice of human trafficking -- including women and children
forced into prostitution. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization
Act of 2003 (TVPRA) renews the U.S. government's commitment to identify and
assist victims exploited for labor or sex in the United States and
worldwide.

As President Bush declared before the United Nations
General Assembly in September, "Nearly two centuries after the abolition
of the transatlantic slave trade, and more than a century after slavery was
officially ended, the trade in human beings for any purpose must not be allowed
to thrive in our time."

The TVPRA is a decisive step toward meeting the President's
challenge. It provides fresh resources and initiatives to assist, in particular,
the 18,000 - 20,000 victims of human trafficking who are trafficked into
the United States every year. It augments the legal tools which can be used
against traffickers by empowering victims to bring federal civil suits against
traffickers for actual and punitive damages, and by including sex trafficking
and forced labor as offenses under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organization statute. It also encourages the nation's 21,000 state and local
law enforcement agencies to participate in the detection and investigation
of human trafficking cases.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has
a significant role in implementing the law's victim-centered, compassionate
approach to finding and aiding the victims of this modern-day slave trade.
HHS is launching a major public awareness campaign, targeted at local officials
and service providers most likely to encounter victims, to find, rescue and
restore victims to a humane condition of life. HHS welcomes the additional
authority this Act provides to assist victims from the moment of
detection.

A bedrock principle of this legislation is that victims
of trafficking in the U.S. (who likely are not legal aliens and may be involved
in illegal practices such as prostitution) are not perpetrators of crime
-- they are the victims of crime, and they ought be allowed to rebuild their
lives by staying here in the United States.

By signing the reauthorization of the federal human
trafficking program, the President is reaffirming his Administration's commitment
to end the horror of human trafficking, and to ensure that the real criminals
-- the traffickers of innocent people -- are prosecuted to the fullest extent
of the law.

Note: All HHS press releases, fact sheets
and other press materials are available at
http://www.hhs.gov/news.

Sunday, December 21, 2003

At around the same time The Awareness Center started creating a sex offender registry of alleged and convicted sex offenders regarding Jewish offenders, a Catholic organization started doing the same thing.

The difference is that the Survivors First database focused on clergy sexual abuse cases, where The Awareness Center's registry focused on all cases involving sex crimes where either the offender or survivor were Jewish.

To help survivors find abuser-specific support groups.
We have learned that these groups are very helpful for survivors. Priest-specific
groups exist for Birmingham, Hanley and others. Connecting with a survivor
of the same abuser helps a survivor understand that he or she were not
the only one who was abused (a common misperception by survivors).

To find more victims by eventually building a list
of parishes in which an abusive priest served to assist reach-out efforts
to survivors. We believe that thousands of survivors have not yet sought
help due to the shame and guilt so often associated with sexual abuse.

To educate the mainstream Catholics that priests
have actually been convicted (many do not believe that this is the case)

To help law enforcement and to educate lawmakers.
The Priest Database as been used by grand juries, police and detectives
as a law enforcement tool. It has also been useful in educating lawmakers
of the importance of extending or eliminating the statute of limitations
for sexual abuse, Such reform is the number one legislative goal of
the Survivor Movement.

To help with Public Safety to keep kids safe. There
are a number of documented cases in which an alleged abuser or convicted
abuser left the church only to abuse children again in a secular setting
because the Bishop did not inform authorities about his behavior.

Important notes about the Priest Database

The Priests Database at www.SurvivorsFirst.org is not breaking
any new news. It is *reformatting* or "re-reporting" information
that is already in the public realm. No new allegations
are included in this Database, since each allegations has already been
reported by the media.

The only way an allegation or legal action is entered into the Priest
Database is if it has been reported by a reputable newspaper
or we obtain a copy of a lawsuit or other similar instrument. SF maintains
a file for each priest with a physical copy of the article.

SF compiles only facts -- the fact of an allegation or legal
action. Since we are re-reporting previously reported information,
this information has already been approved by the legal departments
of respected newspapers (Globe, USA Today, etc.). SF should be judged
with the same criticism that the NY Times, Boston Globe and San Francisco
Chronicle are judged in their reporting of allegations -- no less or
no more.

The Priest Database does not state or imply that
priests with allegations are guilty. It simply reports that
an allegation exists. The U.S. legal system assumes one is innocent
until proven guilty. Civil or private settlements are typically not
admissions of guilt.

False allegations are extremely rare. According
to the Church's own defense lawyer who has defended the Church against
over 500 lawsuits, false allegations are less than 2% of all allegations
(New York Times Aug. 31, 2002) . Greedy people who want a quick dollar
would have a much better chance for a financial windfall with socially
acceptable fake accidents like slipping on water in a department store,
rather than a socially embarrassing and shame-ridden claim of being
sodomized by a well respected priest. SF is building a list of priests
cleared by a jury trial and welcomes help in finding such cases.

We do not list the victim's name or the current address or
phone number of a priest.

Keeping the database accurate and up-to-date is extremely important.
We have 4 volunteers who monitor news sources to keep our database
current and we receive many emails each week with updates and
corrections. We actively welcome emails with corrections and updates
and update the Priest Database on the web site once a month.

A very important public debate right now is the percentage of priests
who are abusers. The Vatican insists that it is less than 1% and equal
to averages in other groups. The Priest Database lends facts to this
emotional debate. As with any disaster or scandal, it is responsible
to estimate the size of the damage. When there is an oil spill, prudent
people estimate the number of barrels of oil spilled. The Priest Database
is a responsible effort to estimate the extent of sexual abuse in the
Church.

This website is maintained by survivors, their supporters and dedicated Catholics.

FALLOUT from a high-profile investigation of child-abuse allegations
against a former Manitoba rabbi has created a new form of libel chill
for a Winnipeg author of children's books.

Carol Matas - Author

Carol Matas had been invited to speak in February at an interfaith
luncheon sponsored by the Sisterhood of Winnipeg's Shaarey Zedek
synagogue. But her appearance was cancelled after the congregation
received a legal opinion suggesting the synagogue could be sued for
publication of a libel if it permitted Matas to speak.

"This is paranoia of the worst sort and censorship in the worst way.
Libel chill isn't a strong enough term. Basically, they're censoring me
and not the book. Somehow, I am no longer acceptable," Matas said
recently.

Book about Rabbi Ephraim Bryks

What's prompting the controversy is
Matas's latest novel, The Primrose Path. Published by Winnipeg's
Blizzard Publishing, it's the story of a Jewish school enduring a
child-abusing rabbi. The case bears some similarities to a Winnipeg
police investigation of Rabbi Ephraim Bryks,
former principal of the Torah Academy in Winnipeg. Now closed, Torah
Academy was a school operated by Herzlia-Adas Yeshrun, an Orthodox
congregation formerly led by Bryks, now living in New York.

After a year-long review, Manitoba's public prosecutions office last
month decided that no Criminal Code charges were warranted against Bryks,
who was previously investigated for similar allegations by Winnipeg
police and the city's child and family services department in 1987 and
1988.

The Case of Rabbi Ephraim Bryks - Alleged sexual predator

After a 1994 CBC documentary outlining other child-abuse allegations involving Bryks
(which was broadcast before the police resumed their second
investigation), the rabbi launched a defamation lawsuit against his
accusers and the CBC. But beyond a preliminary notice, these cases have
not progressed. Two years after the 1988 report by the city department,
Bryks left Winnipeg for New York.

While Matas says she was only asked to deliver a speech, the synagogue
maintains that she was going to speak about her new book. By
acquiescing to the threat of litigation, the synagogue's decision, to
some, appears to be a highly unusual instance of the suppression of an
author's freedom of expression, especially since no defamation lawsuits
have been commenced against the book, which was published last
September.

Matas, who is emphatic that her book isn't based on Bryks,
describes The Primrose Path as "a universal story which I based on
research across North America. And in two other communities where I've
spoken besides Winnipeg, people in the audience believe that the book
is about a specific case in their community. It says to me that I'm
doing my job as a writer because it is a universal story."

Matas also says she is very upset about the synagogue's cancellation,
initiated, it said, because of a "scheduling conflict." "I think it's
shameful and outrageous. . . . And being unable to have me as a speaker
because they're afraid that someone might sue them is scary business."

Matas says she learned from Shaarey Zedek's president, Samuel Wilder,
that her invitation had been cancelled because the synagogue's lawyers
said that since "the story in The Primrose Path so closely parallels
what happened in Winnipeg, the synagogue would be subject to a
defamation action if they let me speak."

Contacted earlier this month, Wilder refused to answer any questions
for The Globe and Mail, saying "this isn't an issue for the press."

Denise Waldman, president of the synagogue's Sisterhood, was equally
reticent about answering questions and, she said, "if there is any
Sisterhood board member who speaks to you, they will have to answer to
me. I'm a young president of a flourishing sisterhood and we don't need
any garbage."

The Sisterhood's move is,
however, attracting negative attention from both inside and outside
Winnipeg. Penny Dickens, executive director of the Writers Union of
Canada, for one, condemned the decision. "They took the easy way out.
It certainly wasn't a heroic decision - they've silenced a writer. . . .
This isn't chill, it's a major freeze."

While
characterizing libel chill as a term usually involving state action,
Toronto criminal lawyer Clayton Ruby had "grave doubts" regarding the
legal opinion. "Unless they knew in advance that she's going to be
defaming someone, they wouldn't be responsible for giving her a
platform."

Ruby also deplored the Sisterhood's
cancellation of Matas's address. "They don't understand literature and
its role in a free society. It's a message from the community that we
don't want to talk about that subject matter. And then authors won't
write books like that. It's unhealthy and shortsighted."

David Matas, a Winnipeg immigration lawyer and cousin of the author,
agreed with Ruby. "Her work is a work of fiction. It doesn't identify a
specific person. It's most unusual for a libel suit to come out of a
fictional account," Matas said.

However, Julian
Porter, a Toronto lawyer noted for his expertise in libel and
defamation, said that it is possible that the author of a fictional
book could be sued for libel and that the synagogue could be sued, in
turn, by allowing Carol Matas to speak. Generally speaking, he said,
the test is if the work of fiction refers, or is capable of referring,
to a real person. Although there are no Canadian precedents, civil
liability for such cases has been found in the United States, England
and Australia.

Porter qualified his comments by
noting that these types of cases are very rare. Yet, about 15 years
ago, he successfully settled a libel case involving Toronto author Ian
Adams, who wrote a novel suggesting that a government representative
was part of a Communist spy ring.

Porter
predicted that to win such a case at trial a lawyer would have to put a
number of people in the witness box, each of whom believed that the
book was about the allegedly defamed person. To safely write a roman a
clef, Porter recommended that writers should change a host of personal
details. "Changing a couple of little things isn't enough."

But Matas's Winnipeg-based publisher, Anna Synenko, dismisses the
possibility of libel action involving The Primrose Path. "We haven't
received any libel suits yet and I don't think we will. I really don't
understand what the Sisterhood's problem is. The book is based on a
large amount of research and not on one incident."

Matas is the author of 15 books, most aimed at readers aged 10 to 17.
Her novels include Daniel's Story, commissioned by the U.S. Holocaust
Memorial Museum in 1993, and Sworn Enemies, which won the National
Association of Jewish Libraries' Sydney Taylor award in 1993.

Don't you just hate it when you're upset, and someone tells you to take a deep breath and exhale? I know for myself that used to be the last thing I wanted to hear. I remember thinking yeah right, what is breathing going to do! When we are sick, hurting, or lonely all we want is to be soothed. Being an adult means taking care of our selves. Remembering to breathe is just one of the many things we can do when we're feeling bad. One thing I've learned about breathing is that if I don't exhale, I begin to lose control of my life. By just remembering to breathe (in and OUT) I can do just about anything!

When we are surprised, shocked, panicked, stressed, or have flashbacks -- we automatically inhale fast and deep, but usually forget to exhale. When we don't let our breath go out, our body toxins and the attached feelings to the stressor get stuck inside. After several years of keeping our breath inside, our feelings also build up and we begin to feel stuck. When this happens we begin to feel like we can't do anything.

Why is it so important to breathe? When you stop breathing, your brain stops receiving oxygen. When that happens, you can't think clearly, and you can't solve problems. I know for myself when I can't solve problems I start to feel stuck, helpless, unable to move beyond the point that I'm at.

If you stop and think about it there are several types of breathing. One important type is the kind women learn in Lamaze classes. They teach mothers-to-be to reduce labor pains, with two short breaths out, and one long, deep breath in. Remember the key word to relieving pain -- breathing OUT!!! This is true for both physical and emotional pain.

When we go to the doctor and need to have an X-ray taken, the technician always reminds us to take a deep breath, right before they take the picture. But how many of us forget to let go of the air and exhale? What kinds of feelings do you have when you are breathing in before an X-ray? I know for myself when I'm going to have an X-ray taken, it's because I've fallen, or am sick and are tying to find out if something more serious is wrong. If I don't remember to exhale, I am once again breathing in anxiety, panic, stress, etc.

When most of us are on a roller coaster and about to go down hill, we take a deep breath in. Do we remember to exhale? If the answer is NO, once again we keep in the stress. The same thing happens when we are about to take a test at school, for a job, confronting someone about something that bothers us. We all take a deep breath in, but how many of us remember to let it go. I wonder how many deep breaths are stuck inside each and everyone of us? How many of those feelings attached to those breaths are also stuck inside us? I also wonder how many of us develop stressed related illnesses because we forget to let go of our breath? Breathing (in and OUT) can help us think more clearly, elevate stress and anxiety. Paying attention to our breath can also help bring us back to the Here and Now, when we are having flashbacks, or when we are frightened by a memory and/or thought.

I think the two most important things about breathing is we all know how to do it, and IT'S FREE! You don't have to go to the doctor to get a prescription to breathe. It's innate, we are born already knowing how and when to breathe. I think another important thing to remember is that I've never heard of anyone overdosing from taking slow, long, deep breaths and then exhaling slowly. I don't think I've ever heard of any one dying from it either. So the next time someone reminds you to breathe, remember they are trying to help you learn to live!

Monday, December 15, 2003

Convicted of four counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child. He is serving four consecutive terms of fifteen years to life due to two prior rape convictions.In 2003, the state of California settled a lawsuit with Victor Wayne Cooper who is serving a 60-year sentence for child molestation. Cooper had sued the state for not providing him with kosher meals. As part of the settlement, the state agreed to make good-faith efforts to have kosher food available to inmates in all of its 33 prisons by 2006._______________________________________________________________________________Disclaimer: Inclusion in this website does not constitute a recommendation or endorsement. Individuals must decide for themselves if the resources meet their own personal needs.

Defendant Victor Wayne Cooper was convicted by a jury of four counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon a seven-year-old girl. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) Defendant is serving an enhanced sentence of four consecutive terms of fifteen years to life due to two prior rape convictions. (Pen. Code, § 667.51, subd. (d).) Defendant seeks to overturn his conviction on grounds of juror misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and denial of his right to present evidence on his motion below for a new trial. In addition to this appeal, defendant petitions for a writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and improper use at sentencing of a constitutionally invalid prior conviction. That petition was consolidated with defendant's appeal for purposes of argument and briefing.

We affirm the judgment and, in a discussion following our treatment of the issues raised on appeal, deny the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In the published portion of this opinion, we address defendant's habeas corpus claim that he did not waive his right to a jury trial when pleading guilty to a prior offense, thereby rendering the prior conviction invalid and precluding its use in enhancing defendant's sentence in this case. On that issue, we hold that defendant's bare declaration of nonwaiver, without further elaboration of facts and absent an allegation that he did not understandingly and voluntarily plead guilty, is insufficient to establish a prima facie case for collateral relief. [7 Cal. App. 4th 596]

I.-III.A. fn. ***

B. Defendant's Allegations Are Insufficient to Support a Collateral Challenge to the Constitutional Validity of His Prior Conviction

In reliance on Boykin-Tahl, defendant collaterally attacks the validity of his 1976 rape conviction, claiming that he did not waive his right to a jury trial at the time of entering his guilty plea in Placer County. This conviction and a second prior rape conviction were admitted by defendant and used to enhance his sentence. (Pen. Code, § 667.51, subd. (d).) Defendant did not challenge his prior conviction in the trial court by a motion to strike, or by any other means.

As evidence of the court's failure to obtain defendant's waiver of his right to a jury trial on the prior conviction, defendant has submitted a copy of a minute order noting his arraignment on the change of his plea from not guilty to guilty. The order consists of a typewritten form with blank spaces to be checked as appropriate. Defendant notes that the space next to the statement that defendant was advised of his legal rights was not checked at his arraignment. The declaration of defendant's counsel states that no transcript of the disputed proceeding exists. In addition to the proffered minute order, defendant submitted his declaration that "At the time that I plead [sic] guilty in 1976 I did not waive my constitutional right to jury trial." [7 Cal. App. 4th 597]

[3a] We find that the evidence presented by the minute order of a silent record and defendant's bare declaration of nonwaiver of his right to a jury trial are insufficient to support defendant's challenge of the prior conviction in this habeas corpus proceeding. Defendant has not explained the circumstances surrounding the entry of his guilty plea but has presented only the conclusory allegation that he did not waive his right to a jury trial. "Conclusory allegations made without any explanation of the basis for the allegations do not warrant relief ...." (People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal. 3d 612, 656 [250 Cal.Rptr. 659, 758 P.2d 1189], cert. den.490 U.S. 1012 [104 L.Ed.2d 172, 109 S.Ct. 1658].) Here, defendant's declaration suggests, by its silence on the point, that he was advised of his constitutional rights and expressly waived his right to confront witnesses and his right against self-incrimination. Yet, no factual basis is presented for defendant's conclusory claim that he did not waive his right to a jury trial, making it impossible to determine whether defendant contends that no express waiver of this one constitutional right was sought or, if sought, that his response to the court's query was an ineffective waiver for some reason.

Defendant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is otherwise insufficient in its failure to allege that he did not understandingly and voluntarily plead guilty or, as specifically applied here, defendant has failed to allege that he was unaware of his right to a jury trial at the time of his prior conviction and would not have pleaded guilty had he known of this right. [4] As our Supreme Court has recently affirmed in the context of a direct appeal, a guilty plea is valid, despite Boykin-Tahl errors, if the plea is voluntary and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances. (People v. Howard, supra, 1 Cal. 4th at p. 1175.) In holding that no Boykin-Tahl errors are reversible per se, Howard disavowed the previous distinction commonly made or suggested between defective admonitions or waivers of the three constitutional rights, reviewed under a reversible per se standard on appeal, and defective admonitions or waivers concerning the nature of the charge or consequences of the plea, reviewed for prejudice on appeal. (Id., at pp. 1174-1178; see In re Ronald E., supra, 19 Cal. 3d at pp. 320-321.) [3b] In the context of a collateral attack, as opposed to a direct appeal, it has consistently been the rule that prejudice (an uninformed, involuntary plea) must be demonstrated for any Boykin-Tahl error. (People v. Harty (1985) 173 Cal. App. 3d 493, 503-504 [219 Cal.Rptr. 85]; see In re Ibarra (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 277, 283, fn. 1 [193 Cal.Rptr. 538, 666 P.2d 980].) This rule, and its application, are first expressed by Ronald E. A review of the case is instructive.

[5] (See fn. 4.) Ronald E. concerned a challenge to the constitutional validity of a present (as opposed to a prior) "conviction," or admission of juvenile [7 Cal. App. 4th 598] misconduct, on Boykin-Tahl grounds. fn. 4 Ronald had a long history of juvenile violations, beginning with a wardship imposed in 1971 on an initial petition. (In re Ronald E., supra, 19 Cal. 3d at p. 319, fn. 1.) Ronald was released in 1972 but charged for another violation in a supplemental petition. (Ibid.) Ronald was again detained at juvenile hall and released. (Ibid.) Second and third supplemental petitions were filed in subsequent years, and each time Ronald admitted the charges and went to juvenile hall. (Ibid.) After an initial commitment on the third supplemental petition, Ronald was paroled. (Ibid.) While on parole, Ronald was again charged with juvenile violations, in a fourth supplemental petition, and parole was revoked. (Id., at p. 320, fn. 1.) Ronald applied for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he was unlawfully detained by the Youth Authority because he was not advised of certain rights at the time he admitted the allegations of misconduct contained in the initial and first three supplemental petitions. fn. 5 (Id., at p. 319.)

Our Supreme Court refused to consider Ronald's claim that he was not advised of his Boykin-Tahl rights on the initial and first two supplemental petitions because he was not diligent in seeking relief. The court ruled that Ronald waived any constitutional defects by his unexcused failure to take expeditious appeals. (In re Ronald E., supra, 19 Cal. 3d at p. 322.) The court also found that Ronald's Boykin-Tahl claim relating to the third supplemental petition was untimely because it was not raised until revocation of parole after the hearing on the fourth supplemental petition. (Ibid.) In addition to being untimely, the application for a writ was also insufficient in failing to allege that he was previously unaware of the denial of Boykin- Tahl rights. (Id., at p. 323, fn. 3.) In the absence of such an allegation, Ronald failed to demonstrate that he had not knowingly waived his right to such relief by not appealing. fn. 6 (Ibid.) [7 Cal. App. 4th 599]

Despite these infirmities, the court proceeded to consider the merits of Ronald's Boykin-Tahl claim as it related to the third supplemental petition. The court found that Ronald had been advised of his constitutional rights to confrontation and against self-incrimination and "expressly acknowledged that he surrendered such rights." (In re Ronald E., supra, 19 Cal. 3d at p. 323.) The court also found that Ronald was sufficiently advised of the nature of the charges against him. (Id., at p. 324.) However, Ronald was not admonished of the consequences of his plea or admission. (Id., at p. 325.) Since such an admonishment has never been held to be constitutionally compelled, the court evaluated the error for its prejudicial effect. (Ibid.) Finding that it was not reasonably probable that Ronald would not have admitted the charge in the third supplemental petition had he been advised of the consequences of his admission, the court ruled that no prejudice was established, and the application for a writ of habeas corpus was denied. (Id., at pp. 325-326, 328.)

While applying a prejudice standard of review because the omitted advisement was not constitutionally compelled, the court also suggested that a prejudice standard would apply even to constitutional advisements because the error was raised in a petition for habeas corpus rather than in a direct appeal. "Petitioner is not entitled to collateral relief merely because of a Boykin-Tahl denial as in such event the writ would merely serve as an alternate path for appellate review. He must, in these circumstances, establish that his admissions were involuntary for want of the admonitions required by Boykin-Tahl. But notwithstanding the absence of such admonitions, if he were in fact independently aware of Boykin-Tahl rights, then his admissions could not be deemed involuntary and he would not be entitled to collateral relief. [Citation.] Petitioner has failed in the instant collateral attack to allege his lack of knowledge of Boykin-Tahl rights." (In re Ronald E., supra, 19 Cal. 3d at p. 325, fn. 8.)

[3c] In this context, we read Ronald E. as establishing that a habeas corpus petitioner must make a prima facie showing of prejudice by affirmatively alleging an uninformed, involuntary plea. (See People v. Harty, supra, 173 Cal. App. 3d at p. 503 [defendant must demonstrate that guilty plea was involuntary for want of Boykin-Tahl admonitions].) It is not sufficient to allege without elaboration, as done here, that petitioner "did not waive [his] constitutional right to jury trial." Although obiter dictum, our Supreme Court has since stated that a collateral attack upon a prior conviction on Boykin-Tahl grounds is insufficiently alleged where defendant has failed to allege [7 Cal. App. 4th 600] that he was "unaware of his [Boykin-Tahl] rights and would not have pleaded guilty had he known of them." (People v. Tassell (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 77, 92 [201 Cal.Rptr. 567, 679 P.2d 1].)

The requirement that prejudice be alleged is consistent with Sumstine and deserves comment. Sumstine held that a defendant whose sentence is subject to enhancement because he suffered a prior conviction may collaterally attack the validity of that conviction by moving to strike on the ground of a Boykin-Tahl error. (People v. Sumstine, supra, 36 Cal. 3d at p. 914.) Sumstine has its genesis in cases holding that prior, uncounseled convictions are invalid and may not be used in sentence enhancements. (In re Woods (1966) 64 Cal. 2d 3 [48 Cal.Rptr. 689, 409 P.2d 913]; In re Luce (1966) 64 Cal. 2d 11 [48 Cal.Rptr. 694, 409 P.2d 918]; In re Tucker (1966) 64 Cal. 2d 15 [48 Cal.Rptr. 697, 409 P.2d 921].) People v. Coffey (1967) 67 Cal. 2d 204 [60 Cal.Rptr. 457, 430 P.2d 15], held that a defendant need not wait until final judgment, as done in Woods, to challenge the constitutional validity of an uncounseled prior conviction used to enhance his sentence but is entitled to bring a motion to strike the prior conviction. In Sumstine, the Supreme Court refused to limit Coffey to right to counsel claims: "a defendant may bring any challenge that undermines the constitutional basis of his prior conviction." fn. 7 (People v. Sumstine, supra, at p. 917.)

However, the Sumstine court held that the motion to strike the prior conviction was insufficient in simply alleging that the record on defendant's prior conviction was silent, without alleging "actual denial of his constitutional rights." (People v. Sumstine, supra, 36 Cal. 3d at p. 922.) A collateral attack on the prior conviction requires an affirmative allegation that defendant "did not know of, or did not intelligently waive," his Boykin-Tahl rights. (Id., at p. 914.) This rule has recently, and succinctly, been reiterated: "To collaterally attack a judgment of conviction on Boykin- Tahl grounds, it is not enough to show an incomplete or otherwise defective advisement; defendants must also allege and prove that, when the plea was entered, they lacked knowledge of, or did not intelligently waive, their constitutional rights." (People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 577, 637 [276 Cal.Rptr. 874, 802 P.2d 376], cert. den. ___U.S. ___[116 L.Ed.2d 440, 112 S.Ct. 420]; see Curl v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 1292, 1303 [276 Cal.Rptr. 49, 801 P.2d 292].) A guilty plea is valid if the plea is voluntary and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances. (People v. Howard, supra, 1 Cal. 4th at p. 1175.)

Reading Ronald E., Tassell, Sumstine, Hayes and Howard together, we conclude that a collateral attack upon a prior conviction used for sentence [7 Cal. App. 4th 601] enhancement, whether by a habeas petition or a motion to strike, must allege prejudice: an "actual denial" of constitutional rights rendering the plea "involuntary" because defendant was "unaware of his [Boykin-Tahl] rights and would not have pleaded guilty had he known of them." fn. 8 (People v. Tassell, supra, 36 Cal. 3d at p. 92; see also People v. Howard, supra, 1 Cal. 4th at p. 1175; People v. Hayes, supra, 52 Cal. 3d at p. 637; People v. Sumstine, supra, 36 Cal. 3d at pp. 922-923; In re Ronald E., supra, 19 Cal. 3d at p. 325, fn. 8.) Applying this principle to the present case, defendant has not alleged that he was unaware of his right to a jury trial at the time of his prior conviction and that he would not have pled guilty had he known of the right. Defendant has therefore failed to establish a prima facie case for collateral relief.

IV. Disposition

The judgment is affirmed, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

Newsom, J., and Stein, J. concurred.

FN *. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 976(b) and 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts I, II and IIIA.

FN *. See footnote, ante, page 593.

FN 3. In addition to advisement of these three constitutional rights, an accused must also be advised of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. (In re Tahl, supra, 1 Cal. 3d at p. 132.) However, it has always been clear that these later advisements are required as a judicially declared rule and are not derived from the United States Constitution. (In re Ronald E. (1977) 19 Cal. 3d 315, 320-321 [137 Cal.Rptr. 781, 562 P.2d 684].)

FN 4. The Boykin-Tahl protections extend to juvenile proceedings, with the exception of a right to trial by jury. (In re Ronald E., supra, 19 Cal. 3d at p. 321.)

FN 5. Ronald's admission of the truth of the allegations of the third supplemental petition was the basis for his present confinement. (In re Ronald E., supra, 19 Cal. 3d at p. 319, fn. 1.) However, that proceeding was dependent upon his initial commitment, and thus Ronald also challenged the validity of his previously adjudicated wardship and detentions. (Ibid.)

FN 6. In a later Supreme Court case, discussed below, the timeliness requirement of Ronald E. barring broad challenges to a current conviction was not applied to a collateral attack upon a prior conviction used to enhance a sentence. (People v. Sumstine (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 909, 919-921 [206 Cal.Rptr. 707, 687 P.2d 9040].) The Sumstine court did not discuss the separate question of an implied waiver in failing to allege an unawareness of the Boykin-Tahl error at a time when the prior conviction could have been appealed. (In re Ronald E., supra, 19 Cal. 3d at pp. 323, fn. 3, 325, fn. 8.) However, the Sumstine court did note that motions to strike are the preferred means to raise collateral attacks on prior convictions used in sentence enhancements. (People v. Sumstine, supra, at p. 920.) Here, defendant has failed not only to allege that he was unaware of the claimed error at a time when the prior conviction could have been appealed, but has also failed to allege that he was unaware of the error at a time when he could have brought a motion to strike in the lower court. Since we conclude that defendant's petition is insufficient on other grounds, we need not reach the question of whether these deficiencies constitute an implied waiver.

FN 7. In a concurring opinion, then Associate Justice Lucas stated his view that collateral attacks upon prior convictions used in sentencing should be limited to cases involving the denial of the right to counsel. (People v. Sumstine, supra, 36 Cal. 3d at p. 924 (conc. opn. of Lucas, J.).)

FN 8. Assuming an allegation of prejudice, the movant or petitioner would then bear the burden of proving that he was unaware of his Boykin-Tahl rights and would not have pled guilty had he been aware. (See Curl v. Superior Court, supra, 51 Cal. 3d at pp. 1306-1307 [defendant has burden of proving constitutional invalidity of prior conviction].)

The settlement arrived at this week requires the Department of Corrections to make kosher meals available at California State Prison Solano by Jan. 11. The prison is where Victor Wayne Cooper, an inmate and Orthodox Jew who brought the lawsuit, has been incarcerated since 1989.

As part of the agreement, the state also must make good-faith efforts to make kosher food available at its other prisons by 2006.

Cooper sued in federal court in San Francisco last year after prison officials repeatedly refused his requests for a kosher diet, according to his attorney, Heather Nolan.

The reason, said state prison spokesman Russ Heimerich, is the department's rules forbade providing special meals that cost more than regular meals. The prisons could provide substitute dishes for Muslim inmates without extra spending, but kosher menus cost more, he said.

But according to Nolan, federal courts have long required prisons to offer inmates diets that are consistent with their religious beliefs. In one such ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in 1997 that an Arizona prison had to make kosher food available to a Jewish inmate.

Nolan said that in California, the response until now had been for prisons "to offer another helping of mashed potatoes" instead of a balanced diet to an inmate whose religion does not permit eating pork.

"It's too bad it took this kind of effort to get (the state) to comply with existing (legal) authority," she said.

The state's 160,000 prisoners include about 300 identified as Jewish, and perhaps 40 observant Jews who would want a kosher diet, said Nolan.

Orthodox inmate fights the law to keep kosher — and winsBy Joe EskenaziJewish Weekly - December 19, 2003The state for years willfully ignored its obligation to provide kosher meals for Orthodox inmates, according to the lawyers of a Jewish prisoner who this week won that right via a legal settlement.

The California Department of Corrections agreed Wednesday, Dec. 10, to provide kosher meals to Victor Wayne Cooper and his fellow inmates at Solano State Prison. The settlement further stipulates that the state must make "good faith efforts" to provide kosher programs in all state prisons by 2006.

The state was eager to settle the case because, in refusing to provide Cooper with meals, "they knew they were breaking the law," said Cooper's co-counsel, Shinyung Oh.

A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 1997 ordered the state of Arizona to provide kosher meals to a Jewish inmate and should have pertained to California as well.

"The problem was, the law has been very firmly established since 1997, and the California Department of Corrections has been ignoring it all these years. The 9th Circuit [ruling] should apply to all the states in the circuit. They've just been ignoring all this time," Oh said.

Before suing the state, Cooper, a convicted child molester decades into a 60-year sentence, spent years exhausting the prison's administrative remedies in his quest for kosher food. At one point, he even went on a hunger strike.

"Every step of the way, he was denied. It was an extra expense," Oh continued. "They claimed it was too expensive."

Greg Fayard, a deputy state attorney general, strongly denied that the state was knowingly violating a 9th Circuit ruling. Instead, he argued, the Department of Corrections' food administrators "were not aware of the 1997 decision until it came up in this lawsuit." Instead, they adhered to an earlier state law declaring that a special meal for observant prisoners cannot cost more than a regular meal.

The food administrators "are not attorneys, and it's not their job to do research on religious liberty," he said. "They didn't know."

Cooper's co-counsel, Heather Nolan, said a prepackaged kosher meal would cost around $2, $1 more than a regular meal.

Fayard said he wasn't yet sure what a "good faith effort" to create a statewide kosher program within two years would entail, but said a task force is being "assembled to formulate some sort of plan."

Los Angeles - Mendel Slavin went to work as a chaplain in a San Diego prison in 2006. A Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic rabbi from the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, he was one of about a dozen Jewish chaplains serving California’s fractional Jewish inmate population at the time. But in the two years since then, that number has doubled. Today Slavin is one of two dozen full-time chaplains employed by the state of California to provide counseling and lead religious services for Jews — and interested non-Jews — who are doing time.

Why the sudden surge in the numbers of Jewish chaplains in the Golden State? Three words: kosher food supervision.

In 2003, the state of California settled a lawsuit with Victor Wayne Cooper, an Orthodox Jew serving a 60-year sentence for child molestation. Cooper had sued the state for not providing him with kosher meals. As part of the settlement, the state agreed to make good-faith efforts to have kosher food available to inmates in all of its 33 prisons by 2006.

As a direct result of the lawsuit, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has been scrambling in recent years, in conjunction with the Northern and Southern California boards of rabbis, to install a Jewish chaplain at every prison in order to oversee the preparation of kosher food.

A similar case in Texas is still pending. But that state’s answer to a lawsuit brought in 2005 on behalf of Max Moussazadeh, a Jew of Iranian descent, has been to consolidate all 23 of its kosher-observant inmates into one prison, bypassing the need for Jewish chaplains across the board.

The work extends far beyond merely vetting jailhouse kosher cuisine. According to one longtime Jewish chaplain, his niche is as close as a rabbi can come to performing missionary work.

“We work with the underbelly of society, the spiritually void, the morally empty,” said Rabbi Lon Moskowitz, the Jewish chaplain at California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo. “It’s important to have chaplains so we can facilitate the Jewish Kosher Diet Plan statewide, but it’s a requirement so that the spiritual needs of incarcerated Jews are met.”

Moskowitz, 52, is a former pulpit and Hillel rabbi who has worked at California Men’s Colony — perhaps the most scenic of the state prisons, built on Highway 1 along California’s stunning central coast — for 11 years. Among the inmates with whom he has worked most closely over the years, he said, including those who have become his clerks and helped with paperwork, there is a 0% rate of recidivism.

Moskowitz also sits on the prison system’s Jewish Kosher Diet Task Force. He estimates that California Men’s Colony — which houses one of the state prison system’s only dedicated Jewish chapels — has some 35 inmates on the kosher diet plan. Since the phase-in of kosher meals several years ago, Moskowitz has been actively working to recruit Jewish chaplains. Still, he said, there simply aren’t enough chaplains to fill all the vacancies.

Moreover, the Board of Rabbis of Southern California — the ecclesiastical endorsing body for the state’s Department of Corrections — upholds high standards, according to Moskowitz. The “overwhelming majority” of Jewish chaplains are ordained rabbis, and those who are not have graduate degrees in Jewish studies and experience in chaplaincy work, he said.

California is one of several states, including New York, that have paid chaplains serving in their prisons. In many states, chaplaincy is a volunteer position, or one chaplain attends to all faith groups. California employs a total of 185 chaplains from five different religious groups: Protestants, Catholics, Native Americans, Jews and Muslims.

Jewish chaplains in California state prisons have a small pool from which to draw their congregants. Incarcerated Jews make up only one half to 1% of the state’s 170,000 inmates — a disproportionately low number.

The rabbinical board seeks to recruit rabbis who can work with Jews across the denominational spectrum, said Mark Diamond, executive vice president of the Southern California Board of Rabbis. “If you’re a Reform rabbi, you’re going to work with Orthodox guys who want to put on tefillin, and if you’re a Chabad rabbi, you’re going to work with Jews whose Jewish identity is based on patrilineal descent,” Diamond said.

According to Diamond, the number of Chabad rabbis taking up the work is increasing. Currently, nine of the 24 full-time Jewish chaplains are from the Hasidic sect. Diamond explained that Chabad rabbis, who set up shop in far-flung corners of the globe as part of their overarching mission to reach Jews everywhere, are frequently those in closest geographic proximity to prisons built in remote locales.

Slavin, 30, is among them. Based in San Clemente, Calif., Slavin commutes an hour each way, twice a week, to San Diego’s Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, which houses both low- and high-security inmates. His congregation numbers some 40 inmates out of a total prison population of 5,000. When the kosher diet plan was first introduced two years ago, Slavin said, non-Jewish inmates began attending his services and claiming to be Jewish in order to get on the meal plan. “With the kosher diet, it became fashionable to be Jewish,” he said. He had worked to explain to the non-Jews that eating kosher was not a privilege, but rather a requirement for those who truly were observant Jews.

And working with Jewish inmates, Slavin said, is something of a privilege for him. “I’ll do it and help as much as I can until Moshiach comes, and there’s no more prisons.”

Some of the information on The Awareness Center's web pages may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this update for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Subscribe to The Awareness Center's Newsletter

Translate

Survivors ARE Heroes!

The Awareness Center believes ALL survivors of sex crimes should be given yellow ribbons to wear proudly.

Survivors of sexual violence (as adults and/or as a child) are just as deserving of a yellow ribbon as the men and women of our armed forces, who have been held captive as hostages or prisoners of war.

Survivors of sexual violence have been forced to learn how to survive, being held captive not by foreigners, but mostly by their own family members, teachers, camp counselors, coaches babysitters, rabbis, cantors or other trusted authority figures.

For these reasons ALL survivors of sexual violence should be seen as heroes!